Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 8:23 PM, Noah Misch <n...@leadboat.com> wrote:
>>> Would it work to define this as "if non-NULL,
>>> params lacking a 1-bit may be safely ignored"? Or some other tweak
>>> that basically says that you don't need to care about this, but you
>>> can if you want to.
>> ... this is a better specification.
> Here's an attempt to implement that.
BTW, my Salesforce colleagues have been bit^H^H^Hgriping for quite some
time about the performance costs associated with translating between
plpgsql's internal PLpgSQL_datum-array format and the ParamListInfo
representation. Maybe it's time to think about some wholesale redesign of
ParamListInfo? Because TBH this patch doesn't seem like much but a kluge.
It's mostly layering still-another bunch of ad-hoc restrictions on
copyParamList, without removing any one of the kluges we had already.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
